A Nevada rancher's threat to wage a "range war" with the federal Bureau of Land Management precipitated a standoff today between supporters of the embattled rancher, Cliven Bundy, and law enforcement officials.

Bundy posted a statement on the Bundy Ranch website on Sunday night saying: "They have my cattle and now they have one of my boys. Range War begins tomorrow."

In a notice sent Tuesday directed to the Bureau of Land Management deputy director Neil Kornze and the Nevada BLM state director Amy Lueders, the Iron County Commissioners and Sheriff Mark Gower warned that any action taken by the BLM to gather and confiscate Bundy’s cattle currently grazing on Clark County public lands would warrant Iron County to begin immediately taking steps to reduce the number of feral horses in Southern Utah.

A son of embattled Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy spoke to the media Monday about his arrest the day before in the ongoing federal roundup of his father’s so-called “trespass cattle” northeast of Las Vegas.

Bureau of Land Management officers arrested Dave Bundy, 37, Sunday along state Route 170 near Mesquite.

“They got on their loudspeaker and said that everyone needed to leave,” the younger Bundy said in an impromptu press conference Monday with his father outside a 7-Eleven convenience store along North Las Vegas Boulevard. “I stood there and continued to express my First Amendment right to protest and they approached me and said that if I didn’t leave, they’d arrest me.”

....

Natalie Collins, a spokeswoman for the Nevada U.S. Attorney’s office, said Bundy was released from custody and given a misdemeanor citation for “refusing to disperse and resisting issuance of a citation/arrest.”

....

“What’s happening is they had stole cattle from me and now they have taken their prisoner,” the father said. “Davy is a political prisoner. That’s what you want to call him — he’s a political prisoner.”

Earlier Monday, more than 100 people gathered on private property in northeast Clark County after Cliven Bundy sent out an ominous announcement, promising a war and inviting the press to come cover it.

No kidding. I already saw a Facebook link from a right wing friend about the standoff saying "if only the government could mobilize that much force to rescue those people in benghazi." I don't think my eyes could roll back any further.

No kidding. I already saw a Facebook link from a right wing friend about the standoff saying "if only the government could mobilize that much force to rescue those people in benghazi." I don't think my eyes could roll back any further.

I've been seeing this pop on my Facebook as well...even from people who don't normally post about stuff like this. The saddest part is the bit about alleged connections to Chinese solar farms and potential fracking sites. Neither of the alleged sites for these are even bear Gold Butte.

BLM rounded up about 1/2 of the cows. Bundy and a few hundred demonstrators, many armed tried to stop them. The local sheriff negotiated a truce, in which the BLM would stop the roundup. (ETA: The BLM denies any truce was negotiated. I don't know what sort of "truce" can be "negotiated" when both parties deny any negotiation or truce ever occured)

Bundy then immediately broke the truce. He demanded that the Park Service Rangers disarm and turn their guns over to him, personally. Then a few hundred well armed protestors approached the corral where the impounded cattle were, blocking I-15 in the process. They demanded that the cattle be freed, and refused to obey orders not to approach the corral. A new truce was declared, in which the BLM was given 1/2 hour to evacuate, which they did. The cattle were then released.

A bit of Bundy's speech in which he denies any truce is here: BLM backs down

Quote:

This is what we the people are going to demand this (Saturday) morning,” Bundy said during his turn at the microphone. “You disarm those park service people. And take a pick-up and I want those arms. We want those arms hauled to Virgin Valley disposal. We want those arms delivered right here under these flags in one hour.”

Bundy continued: “If it’s not done then we’re going to decide what to do from this point on.

Well armed cowboys are now above the law, especially Article III of the Constitution. They can break any federal law they believe to be unconstitutional, regardless of what any court says, regardless of any conviction obtained through due process.

Right-Wing Media Are Throwing Gas On A Rancher's Violent Threats Against Government

Quote:

Conservative media have held the confiscation [of Bundy's cattle] out as a big government invasion of private property rights and have repeatedly hyped the rancher and his family as victims being intimidated by a heavily armed force of federal agents who are escalating the situation into the realm of notorious and deadly standoffs like Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Fox News hosted the rancher on the April 9 edition of Hannity, where Sean Hannity sympathized with Bundy's claims against the government and argued that allowing Bundy's cattle to graze on public lands "keeps the price of meat down for every American consumer."

I think it was probably wise of the BLM to back down to avoid violence, but I certainly hope this isn't over. This guy has had ample opportunities to pursue this through legal means, and has lost. The government has been almost ridiculously patient with him. Now he and his backers have used intimidation, pure and simple, to prevent enforcement of the law.

One thing I've been seeing going around from people responding to this is the claim that Ronald Reagan signed the law that led to the fees being charged. From a bit of quick research, this does not seem to be accurate. The law evolved throughout the last century, but the specific law providing for fees seems to have been passed in 1978, though there was a change in the fee structure by executive order in 1986. (This per a page on the BLM website.) Possibly it's the executive order being referred to, but it doesn't look to me like there was any one act or President responsible for the issue over-all.

Honesty never thought I'd live to see the day that the US government would surrender to a bunch of thugs who should be ashamed to hide behind the Stars and Stripes they violate by holding peace hostage.

Can someone please explain this to me, as US law is not something I'm familiar with?

As I understood it, the protesters claim that the BLM was acting out of their jurisdiction, based on the tenth amendment. I don't know if that holds water or not, but let's assume there is reasonable doubt (even if they have lost in court, courts are not always right).

If they indeed were acting outside their jurisdiction, they would be breaking the law, and the protesters would be within their rights to disarm and apprehend them, which, I think, was more or less their demand. If, and I don't say that it necessarily was so, it was true that the BLM was acting illegally, wasn't this exactly the type of situation that the second amendment was created in anticipation for and didn't it play out more or less the way the second amendment hoped it would, that the state, acting erroneously, backed down after a show of strength by the people?

Now, it certainly could have been handled neater, but, as things turned out, it was a peaceful protest, insofar as it never escalated to violence (true, both side showed the capacity for violence, but in the end, they more or less agreed and neither side used that capacity).

I'm not advocating either side here, I don't know enough of either law not the situation, but if several hundreds of people are prepared to take a protest to this level, I, at least, want to try to see their side of it. They must have had their reasons, and I want to understand them, so that I can make up my mind in a fair way.

This situation makes me very confused, and I feel that I'm lacking a lot of background information and knowledge to properly choose a side.

I think it was probably wise of the BLM to back down to avoid violence, but I certainly hope this isn't over. This guy has had ample opportunities to pursue this through legal means, and has lost. The government has been almost ridiculously patient with him. Now he and his backers have used intimidation, pure and simple, to prevent enforcement of the law.

Yeah, this group just blatantly violated the law in a very aggressive manner. I can't see how this isn't going to end with a massive FBI operation against hiim.

Quote:

Possibly it's the executive order being referred to, but it doesn't look to me like there was any one act or President responsible for the issue over-all.

I've noticed a very strange trend among ultraconservatives to try portraying all kinds of (from their perspective) good things as having come from something or other that Reagan did. I swear, they ought to just petition the Catholic Church to have him declared a saint already.

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front. If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

1784 - Ordnance Act: Land to be mapped. Define which areas can be settled and which belong to Indians. Settle disputes and regulate homesteading. Land is used as payment for soldiers in the Revolutionary War
Ordnance Survey 1786, part of Treasury Department – carry out Ordnance Act.
Constitution 1789 – Allows federal go to manage property. The fed was already managing land and the Constitution did not specify any changes. Constitution established that Indian Tribes are sovereign, and that lands allocated to Indians are not available for Homesteading.
1812 – Louisiana Purchase, war of 1812. Land Office created out of the Ordnance Survey – map Louisiana Purchase, regulate homesteading. Land used to pay soldiers
1848 – Mexican American War ends with treaty of Guadalupe-Hildago. Interior Dept established, Land Office moved to Interior. Interior also manages Indian related issues, mining and geology.
1853 – Gasden Purchase. New land managed by Interior.
1861 – Civil War – land used to pay soldiers.
1862 – Homestead Act – size of homesteads increased.
1864 – Nevada becomes a state. Nevada Constitution contains clauses recognizing federal land ownership, recognizing federal supremacy, and authorizing us of force by feds to maintain supremacy.
1864 – Yosemite Land grant – some land removed from homesteading availability to be preserved in natural state. Civil War ends.
1876 – Yellowstone National Park established – more land removed from homesteading to be preserved in Natural state.
1877 – Bundy’s ranch homesteaded (This is what Bundy claims, at least, I have not verified it). His family would have filed paperwork with the Land Office.
1905 – Antiquities Act, Grand Canyon National Monument. More land removed from homesteading. In this era more and more National Parks start to get designated. The President can now use Executive Order to remove lands from availability for homesteading.
1905 (fixed) – US Forest Service established – about 80 million acres withdrawn from homesteading, managed for timber resources.
1915 National Park Service established.
1933 – Taylor Grazing Act, grazing on Lands Office Lands and Forest Service lands is regulated by newly created Grazing Service. Grazing rights are leased on a 10-year basis, not owned. Ranchers can, however, own water rights independent of grazing leases.
1937 - Bankhead–Jones Farm Tenant Act. As a result of the Great Depression and the dustbowl, some homesteads are abandoned and brought back into Federal ownership.
1946 – Grazing Service and Land Office merged to form Bureau of Land Management.
1953 – Bundys begin paying for leases on Bunkerville allotment (according to 1998 court ruling)
1964 – Wilderness Act
1968 – National Environmental Policy Act
1973 – Endangered Species Act. Bundys continuously pay grazing fees from 1973 through1993 (according to 1998 ruling).
1976 -- Federal Lands Management and Policy Act – consolidates dozens of acts into one, provides structure and function to BLM. This is the BLM’s “Organic Act”. FLPMA ends Homesteading in the Continental U.S.
1979 – Grazing fees raised to $1.35 per Cow/Calf Pair (Animal Unit) per month. They have not been raised since then.
1980 –Desert Tortoise listed as Threatened. At first, this designation only applies only to Beaver Dam slope in Utah, about 15 miles northeast of Bunkerville.
1986 – Homesteading ends in Alaska. End of Homesteading in America.
1990 – Desert tortoise listed as threatened through Mojave desert – including Bunkerville
1993 –Cliven Bundy stops paying fees. He attempts to pay Clark County, which returns the check. The check would have been insufficient relative to the number of cows he already had out.
1994 – Desert tortoise Critical Habitat is designated, including much of the Bunkerville allotment.
1998 - First Court decision against Bundy. Clark County leases the Grazing rights to Bunkerville allotment and, in concert with the BLM and Fish and Wildife Service, retires them. Endof legal grazing on Bunkerville allotment.

It might have few typos and errors, and I did much of it from memory and in a rush.

As a reply to Troberg -we use the courts to settle disputes over what is or is not unconstitutional. By definition, the Supreme Court is never wrong. They only way to nullify a Supreme Court decision is to pass a Constitutional Amendment through the electoral process. All of the laws and agencies in my timeline have been challenged, and have been found to be constitutional. Federal ownership of land has been challenged and has been found to be constitutional. Bundy is ignoring Article III of the U.S. Constitution, which has already been used to determine that the Property Clause of the Article IV allows for federal retention of land. Article III procedures have determined that the Supremacy Clause renders Bundy's argument regarding amendment 10 invalid; the Constitution of the State of Nevada spells this out in very clear terms.